Tuesday, April 07, 2009

This exchange was too much fun to leave in the comments.

Jewish Atheist said...
Thank God conservatives still have gay marriage to oppose. What will they do in the next generation, when everybody already accepts gay marriage?

Ron Guhname said...
JA: I'm not sure what your post has to do with white racialism, but I'll bite: The next fad we'll be opposing is up to folks like you. Like pyromaniacs, you always have to torch something.

After reading that Foucault thought that a little girl jerking off a mildly retarded man was perfectly harmless, my guess is that the next issue will be lowering the age of consent. Or perhaps it will be Justice Ginsberg's argument that prostitution and bigamy are protected by the Constitution.

20 comments:

DL said...

You might be right. Hasn't the age of consent already been lowered in one of the Scandinavian countries?

Thing is, if the definition of marriage can so easily be changed so that the genders of the participants can be modified, I do not see how the same judges or legislators can argue against the number being modified. How could they possibly remain consistent in allowing modification of one but not the other?

After all, marriage as we have practiced it has been based on 1)nature-- a man and a woman were the "natural" mating partners, "natural" because they possessed the working apparatus to create children and 2) the union of that man and woman was seen as the optimal unit to raise those children.

All that's out the window, I guess, if I am reading the political winds of the liberal judiciary properly.

If men can marry men and women can marry women, and the proponents of this argue that these combinations can be family units every bit as successful at raising children (although only 1/2 as successful at "creating children")as a hetero couple, then a very strong argument for polygamy can be made, it seems to me.

Two moms or more (or two dads or more) might be much more effective in raising children than the one or two parent households we see today. Mormons provided themselves with a very stable society using this construct for quite some time.

Is polygamy what I would like to see? No, but it's clear that the allowing of gay marriage will take us down the path of polygamy. The logic doesn't hold otherwise. If you modify the gender, why not the number?

Of course, why in the hell should I ever expect that this country would operate based on logic anymore? That might hurt someone's feelings.

I've got nothing against gays, but I have grown quite sick of their argument that homosexuality is a natural genetic variant. Yeah, right.

Why have marriage at all at this point? I am single. My mother is widowed. If gays can get married why can't I marry my mother in order to see to it she has medical coverage? Gays argue that they are being denied "rights"? What the hell is being denied single people? It would be nice were I able to carry my mother on my health insurance, but I can't. It would be nice if she and I were accorded the same tax deductions given married people, but we are not.

So, guess I should go into the SF courthouse and have Gavin Newsom marry my mother and me, then wait until the state invalidates the marriage, then file suit until it goes up to the CA state supreme court. Ridiculous? No more ridiculous than gay marriage.

Jason said...

The next issue will be lowering the age of consent?

I think that any liberal atheist inclined to go to that party would find the buffet already trashed by a bunch of men in collars.

Anonymous said...

Artificial wombs may some day (supposedly in about a decade) make it possible for gay men to make babies without the use of an actual female.

Then we will have a legal pickle on our hands concerning gay adoption wont we? But then again, few would probably be wanting to adopt when they can just make kids themselves.



It might have been Larry Auster, but one commenter predicted that someday there would be people arguing in court for the right to have sex with animals in the future. Once I'd have laughed at such a suggestion, but thesedays hardly anything suprises me.

Blode0322 said...

Jewish Atheist is a damn coward.

Mrs. Blessed said...

Let us not be too hard on gays. They are, after all, simply dung beetles feasting on the carrion of marriage, which was killed by no-fault divorce.

~~Mrs. Blessed

Ron Guhname said...

"I think that any liberal atheist inclined to go to that party would find the buffet already trashed by a bunch of men in collars."

Many of them, theistic liberals.

Anonymous said...

I think a better approach would be to support freedom of association.

We can work on ending affirmative action by supporting the gays right to marriage. We'll make the argument that people have the right to merry who they want just as they have the right to hire and promote who they want in private industry.

Politics requires compromise. I would much rather have freedom of association while gays get married than live in NAMville without gay marriage.

DL said...

Anonyous said,

"Politics requires compromise. I would much rather have freedom of association while gays get married than live in NAMville without gay marriage."

Given that choice, I'd agree with you. However
1) I still think any argument against polygamy has to fall under the weight of recent gay marriage decisions and

2) If Greg Cochran's pathogen hypothesis of homosexuality is proven, will gays fight for federal and/or state laws granting them "handicapped" status or some kind of status based on a medical condition? Can't you just see it?

So, yeah, we'd have to hope that affirmative action was long gone by then or else gay applicants to college or those applying for jobs would be able to use their status as a recognized minority to gain preference.

Maybe we really are reaching the point where all the minority groups--ethnics, gays, women, etc. will all do battle with one another. I'd pay to see that fight! It would be kind of like a blazing inferno destroying the forest so that something healthy can grow out of the destruction.

Anonymous said...

Liberals will move on many things:
- animal rights
- they will work increasingly together with libertarians, but will only accept their arguments for open borders (borders as a form of 'apartheid')
- first steps towards the gradual outlawing of religion (excepting Islam ofcourse)
- institutionalising the 'anarcho-tyranny' concept by punishing law-abiding citizens, for harmless behavior and offenses, ever more and harsher, while being ever more tolerant and relaxed towards non-citizens for unacceptable and harmful behavior

Anyway, count on liberals to make the life and living standards of normal productuve people (whatever that may be these days) as bad, prospectless and difficult as possible. Whatever is not in the interest of the hard-working and law-abiding masses, that will be what liberals will argue for as a moral imperative.

PS I just read Obama wants Turkey to join the EU. That would be a good example of what I'm talking about. It will hurt hardworking and law-abiding citizens in their living standards, job prospects and everyday life immensely, but that's what liberals will push for.

Absolut.Feminist said...

Liberal pet peeves are based on their need to define themselves separately from other regular middle class whites. Otherwise, they are not the educated elite.

The next issue will be based on something liberals feel is dear to conservatives.

It might be eating meat. SWPLs are never proud of doing that if they aren't vegetarians. Or perhaps bilingual education.

Whatever it will be, it will be something SWPLs want on someone else's behalf. Like affirmative action for blacks or marriage for the gays. They would never deign to appear like they need to be concerned with looking out for themselves.

But on the other side, religious conservatives like to make noise about utterly pointless issues like flag burning and teaching abstinence only in schools.

Is this the basis of your ire against liberals though? Their silly moral peeves? Conservatives have them too, you know.

Anonymous said...

JA,

I almost always disagree with you, but your reasoning is better than the majority of the people on here, Inductivist included.

Ron Guhname said...

You find yourself almost always disagreeing with people who make the strongest arguments? Strange way to proceed.

Blode0322 said...

Something dear to conservatives ... hmm.

I am thinking the left will try to ban
home schooling,
self-government for towns below a certain size, and/or
IQ tests.

They may also try to prohibit prison systems from having more than a certain percentage of blacks and/or Hispanics.

Last thought: they may start upping Spanish requirements in public schools, if possible at the cost of other languages (French, Latin, Russian, etc.)

Those things oughtta make 'em feel pretty liberal.

Jason said...

"Many of them, theistic liberals."

Blindly aided and abetted by theistic conservatives. If you refuse to clean your own house, you're fully responsible for what breeds there.

Ron Guhname said...

Blindly aided and abetted by theistic liberals--roughly half the church. Folks who certainly would have been more in favor of therapy for pedophile priests.

Bush Backs Turkish EU Membership said...

US Presidents of both parties have favored Turkish EU membership.

Jason said...

Again, if you can't clean your house...

That's one of the great things about protestantism. It makes excommunication and schism much easier. Memetic evolution happens much faster. While there's something to be said for stability in the face of mutation, the Catholic church seems to have a mutation-correcting mechanism that prevents beneficial mutations like the ability to police kiddy-diddlers but still doesn't prevent Catholics coming to hold most of the same beliefs as the rest of the dominant culture.

So from a functional standpoint, the Catholic church is a social organism whose primary purpose is protecting child abusers.

silver said...


I almost always disagree with you, but your reasoning is better than the majority of the people on here, Inductivist included.


JA actually reasons? Got a link?

Anonymous said...

"...the Catholic church seems to have a mutation-correcting mechanism that prevents beneficial mutations like the ability to police kiddy-diddlers..."

In fairness to the RCs, the kiddy-diddling seems to have fallen way off in the last couple of decades - most of the cases that came to light in the recent scandals were from the 60s through 80s.

SFG said...

Hey, how about sadomasochism? They're already putting that in TV shows...